More
6

Wars of attrition are won with factories, not bullets. The US manufacturing capabilities can no longer compete with all nations, and they are likely to continue that downward trend. Combine that with war machines that are very complex, and you have a very limited production speed.

The top tier equipment is often overpriced for what they deliver, and can't be rapidly replaced. The F35 is a good example. Super expensive per unit because it is a multi-purpose craft. Meaning it's not quite as good as a bomber, and not quite as good as a fighter, but way more expensive than eaither. I'm not even sure if the US has the capability to make one by itself. There's just no way they can 'pump them out' if it faced real adversity.
They are powerful aircraft, but they have a low power to cost ratio, and are exceptionally difficult to produce.

It doesn't matter if the F35 is able to take out 5 enemy craft for each one lost, if the enemy craft is 1/10th the cost and time to manufacture.
In a practical sense, China probably has the most dangerous air force. Each individual plane may be a shitty knock-off, but they can produce new ones faster than the US can mobilize existing forces.
Same, to a lesser extent, is true with Russia. Russia is often closer in ability though. The SU50 could (though probably not) even be a superior plane. It is more capable in maneuverability and radar detection, so who knows.

I think the US military has also realized this. I think that it the real impetus behind the light attack project. It is not just about saving cash, it's also a means of sustainable warfare. I think it will continue with light designs for other roles, as well as land and sea versions of the program.
Wars of attrition are won with factories, not bullets. The US manufacturing capabilities can no longer compete with all nations, and they are likely to continue that downward trend. Combine that with war machines that are very complex, and you have a very limited production speed. The top tier equipment is often overpriced for what they deliver, and can't be rapidly replaced. The F35 is a good example. Super expensive per unit because it is a multi-purpose craft. Meaning it's not quite as good as a bomber, and not quite as good as a fighter, but way more expensive than eaither. I'm not even sure if the US has the capability to make one by itself. There's just no way they can 'pump them out' if it faced real adversity. They are powerful aircraft, but they have a low power to cost ratio, and are exceptionally difficult to produce. It doesn't matter if the F35 is able to take out 5 enemy craft for each one lost, if the enemy craft is 1/10th the cost and time to manufacture. In a practical sense, China probably has the most dangerous air force. Each individual plane may be a shitty knock-off, but they can produce new ones faster than the US can mobilize existing forces. Same, to a lesser extent, is true with Russia. Russia is often closer in ability though. The SU50 could (though probably not) even be a superior plane. It is more capable in maneuverability and radar detection, so who knows. I think the US military has also realized this. I think that it the real impetus behind the light attack project. It is not just about saving cash, it's also a means of sustainable warfare. I think it will continue with light designs for other roles, as well as land and sea versions of the program.

22 comments

[–] doggone 3 points (+3|-0)

I think it would depend on the goals of the conflict. The US would may not be able to raise the flag over Moscow or Beijing, but they couldn't do that in Washington either. It's said that neither Russia or China can project power far from their boarders, while the US can.

The most likely scenarios, say Russia invading Poland or China invading Taiwan, are still beyond Russia or China's capabilities, from what I've picked up from casual reading.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+1|-1) Edited

I agree that the nature of the conflict is important.
Under just about all scenarios occupying the US, Russia, or China, is just not feasible for anyone.

The scenarios you suggest are more what I was thinking. But I don't think they are beyond their capabilities. China is rapidly developing its military, it's capabilities grow daily.
I believe Russia is already very capable, but fortunately mostly unmotivated to cause harm.
I think, hypothetically, if Russia decided to take Poland, and was willing to deal with the consequences, they could.
A combined force could out produce them and probably push them back, but not the US alone. I think the US could inflict devastating damage at first, but it would dwindle to nothing as their forces are taken out faster than they can be replaced. It takes years and nine nations to make an F35, but only a few weeks for an SU. Even at 10-1 losses the Russians would prevail.
That assumes that things don't escalate to atomics or space-cannons. I'm also ignoring economic and political factors.

I think a lot of the western military doctrine is based on outdated remnants of cold war theory.
They thought if they have the ability to strike a devastating blow anywhere, they wouldn't need to. Peace through superior firepower.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have exposed some flaws in that thinking. If Syria can bleed them to the point of strain, imagine if they were actually taking losses.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae